I don't know if you actually read the comment section, but here goes. I was in the US Army from 1977 to 1988 initially in the 1/75th Rgr Bn and then various airborne units. I finished out in the Rgr Dept as a RI. An injury took me out of the fight and the service. This little bio was to let you know that my entire time in was dedicated to fight against the Soviet threat, mainly the one anticipated in Europe and the horde flowing thru The Fulda Gap. The idea that A-10's could not operate in a non-permissive arena is a little skewed. At the point where T-62's, BMP's and other armored vehicles were pouring into Poland, the A-10 would have been deployed to counter the threat as they were designed to do. This would have been done without US air superiority. They would have taken losses, but they would have done their initial counter strikes and slowed the break thru.
They were expecting considerable losses of A-10s even then. Remember we were concerned that an overwhelming Soviet attack could result in us going nuclear, so throwing everything at them "hell for leather" to hopefully avoid the need to escalate to Pershing TBMs on Polish and CZ soil made perfect sense. That was why the system was designed as it was, with manual trim tabs on the ailerons (you can't manually operate the full size flaps) to help it limp back to friendly lines so at least the pilot could eject over friendly territory, hopefully.
Please stop sending every defense capability we have to Ukraine, This is stupid. Captured US weapons are on display in Red Square. Design details are being determined now and shared with everyone who hates us. Stop already, Americans have spent decades developing this equipment, it was a lot of hard work and even though some of this stuff is old, they are still the best. Every time we just give this stuff away we do damage to ourselves
I wondered when the war started and all those Russian tanks were all in convoy why Ukraine didn't ask for the A10, of course I didn't think about pilots not being able to fly them straight away, well explained as usual Wes. Slava Ukraini. 💙💛
I'd amend that to 'OLD, already purchased, dead-end programmes'. If there was a proper 1:1 replacement for the A-10 even in the conceptual stages, I'd bet they'd be dumping Warthogs onto Ozerne AB just to lubricate budget line-item approval for said 1:1 replacement. As it is, it seems like closest-analogue Eagle EX is already assured of orders anyway.
I'd argue that helping Ukraine achieve victory by donating them old equipment is a sure fire way of creating a potent customer for new western military technology in the very near future.
SLAVA UKRAINE As a 20 year retired Aircraft Armament Systems Specialist who was in the A-10 Guard Unit at Barksdale AFB I can tell you the A-10 was moth balled because it was TOO EFFECTIVE and the first female A-10 pilot who has also retired because the A-10 got HER home safe to her family and her unit the A-10 could do much more against tanks and artillery than they ever dreamed. The A-10 can turn around 180 degrees in a large enough hangar. I can promise from 20 years loading the A-10, F-16, F-4, and the BUFF with ALCM pylons, if the man pads got a direct hit on an A-10 it would still get home. Also you talk about parts, and you think the bone yard full of dust collecting A-10's can not supply enough parts in a war? I can assure you as a guy who made Air Force aircraft the weapons they are the f-16 is a g-force pilot killer and the A-10 is as simple to learn to fly as a Cessna per the pilots who learned to fly them. You did a whole nice little term paper on this and you didn't ask ANY A-10 pilots about their debriefs before and after flight? What Army and Air Force were you in? Go back to your community college and write a term paper on baby diapers. Sorry that's right you write media articles for RT don't you? What does RT stand for. Write your own Russian orc joke. I am just ashamed I am not in Ukraine using my Mechanical Engineering degree to build the Blue and Yellow version of the A-10 if we don't get any from this chicken $hit democracy. The whole reason NATO countries are selling their f-16's to Ukraine is to get more U.S.tear money for their new incoming F-35's. What is the f-16 called?, the lawn dart, the multi-million dollar Kirby vacuum? A-10 nick name? The TANK KILLER. You did not mention much about it is used right now against HAMAS and in Yemen against the container ship terrorists. The A-10 does not NEED AIR SUPERIORITY. IT IS AIR SUPERIORITY! SLAVA HEROYI
Good subject. The cost of each of those DU rounds, in terms of maintenance, fuel, training and ammo would be a helluva lot more than a drone with a mortar round strapped to it. . Modern war
"The A-10 does not NEED AIR SUPERIORITY. IT IS AIR SUPERIORITY!" You should have written that nonsense way earlier. By the way, comparing the Ukraine theatre with anti-terrorist operations is a big L.
Honestly, the US has hundreds of recently decommissioned Huey Super Cobras just sitting in the desert. They would probably be much more effective and faster training new chopper pilots than the more expensive program of maintaining a fleet of A-10's. Add to the fact that Ukraine is a high aerial threat environment. The Huey's can at least fly very low and slow when needed to avoid getting shot down.
@@Condor1970 In that combat environment they would be more vulnerable than the A-10. The Ukrainians are doing great with their drones and anti armor weapons.
@@tobiasrietveld3819 Well, I'm not going to say whether it's faster or not. I do know that Army helicopter school is total about 18 months from trainee to a pilot. A-10 school is previously qualified pilots then take additional 6 months or so to train on just the A-10. So, how long to become a pilot in the first place, I don't know. Also, helicopter pilots are often warrant officers as well, requiring less prior collegiate education. My only real point was that maintaining a fleet of Cobras is undoubtedly cheaper than the A-10's. Also, helicopters are something Ukraine probably would need and be able to use more effectively in larger numbers than a dozen or so A-10's. Ukraine does have a number of older Hind helicopters, but I would be pretty confident in saying Super Cobras would be a notable step up.
Not sure I’d describe it as beautiful (unless I’m in the military and need air support) but I would call it awesome and wish we in uk had asked for them
Also one of the most overrated aircraft. No aircraft in modern history (after WWII) has caused more friendly fire casualties for both the US and UK. But nobody likes to talk about it (except the British).
Great video, and I know this is a pretty beaten hop if by now, but… I (a former A-10 squadron member) think real opportunities are being missed in online discussions and by the military regarding The A-10, particularly in Ukraine but elsewhere as well. Whether or not future aircraft might provide better options, right now, the A-10 has some potentially untapped uses-no gun, SDB’s or maverick’s required. The four inboard pylons of the A-10 can currently carry sixteen SDB’s. These could be swapped with switchblade 300’s or 600’s, with minimal effort. Due to the light weight of these weapons, all ten pylons (not counting the central 600 gallon drop tank mount or the wingtip AIM ones) could swapped out with up to forty switchblade 600’s (four per pylon) or (if the mounts were designed), one-hundred and sixty switchblade 300’s (sixteen per pylon). Removal of the GaU-8 could allow for an internal fuel store, drone control suite, EW/ECM or any other useful systems. Placing ARM missiles on two of the pylons could also counter/deter any vehicle mounted, radar SA systems and if the central pylon were modified could add a third ARM missile, electronic, com, camera, package, etc. SBD’s could also be included in this mix. Essentially, variable loading options per wing pylon could be: 16x300, 4x600, 4xSDB Mounting Starlink transmitters onboard the A-10 could allow each of these to be launched and directed by ground operators, freeing the pilot to fly. The up to forty minute loiter (slightly more perhaps if air launched) of the 600’s, alleviates the need for the A-10 to loiter near the frontline. If the SDB’s (GBU-39’s) could interchanged with the variants (current and future) of the British SPEAR munition-a size equivalent of the GBU-39, with multi sensor guidance, rocket boosted range and speed and variable payloads including EW and ARM-then the capabilities soar. Ukraine would have to make these adaptations happen but it would not require airframe redesigns (excepting, perhaps, messing with the GaU-8. The U.S. would need the typical planning committee and development stretches pushing it into the future, but Ukraine could push it. For a nation mounting frontline, unguided rocket attacks with Mil-8’s, this would be a far better choice. If adapted with the offensive changes I have suggested, a low altitude dash-in/loiter-out drone swarm launcher that can land a few miles away on a dirt field might be a real plus. I know it isn’t going to happen, but it sure could.
Sorry, but no US pilot has ever flown an A-10 in contested airspace but only in airspace where the ground based anti air has been thoroughly suppressed, and hostile air assets are essentially non existent. A-10's will last about as long in Ukraine as the Su-25's did. Which is to say, not very. Which is why Ukraine has specifically stated IT DOES NOT WANT A-10's. It stated that years ago. They DO NOT WANT THEM...... What about that statement can people not get through their heads? The Ukrainians do not want the A-10 for multiple reasons, and their low survivability in contested airspace is only one of those reasons. For example, has the high maintenance cost of those old airframes (all of them are over 25 years old now) escaped you? The LAST thing the Ukrainians need is a probably niche at best combat platform that costs an arm and a leg to keep flying for very little actual result. The only reason the A-10 has been able to operate as long as it has is because 1) the USAAF has always been able to gain and maintain at minimum the air superiority required for the A-10 to operate effectively. And 2) the US is one of the few places in the world that could afford to keep an ancient, expensive to maintain niche use aircraft in service. Ukraine can do NEITHER of those things. Which is why they do not want the A-10.
Yes, and complete air superiority also means the other guys don't have shoulder launched AA missile systems. But these days, everyone has these in abundance making close air support a suicide mission.
In the real world the A-10 was not meant to survive the inter-German border combat zone of WWIII. It was meant to do a maximum of damage before being shot down or destroyed on the apron. Pilots of the time would invoke the excellent nature of the ejection seat. Transferring them Ukraine would put them into the action environment they were designed for. If the A-10's ended their life operating deep in the former Soviet Union in the fight to prevent the reformation of the USSR the designers would rest well in their graves.
The Russians operate the equivalent of the A10 - the SU25 "Frogfoot" - in their "SMO", as do the Ukraines I believe. Sure, they're taking losses from manpads, but, evidently the combatants consider the SU25 has a role to play in this conflict and thus, must consider the current rate of losses - in aircraft and pilots - as acceptable for the time being. The US could give the Ukrainians the A10, to make up the loss of SU25s, but would Ukraine have sufficient pilots to fly them and could they spare them from frontline operations whilst they were trained to operate the A10?
Oh/ Have you not considered the little, tiny, teeny fact that the Ukrainians have said no thanks? They dont want the A-10. Period. Why? 1) The airframes are all ancient, which means the maintenance costs on those airframes is through the roof. 2) A similar aircraft with a similar role already exists in the Ukrainian and Russian inventory, the Su-25 Frogfoot. Have you LOOKED at the loss rates of Su-25's in Ukraine? They are through the damned roof. Fact is the A-10 is a legacy aircraft that flew as long as it has ONLY because the USAAF has been able to maintain Air Superiority wherever the A-10 was deployed. In anything other than a regime of air superiority, and preferably air supremacy, the A-10 is so much target practice. Its simply a good way to get pilots killed. And thats the reality of Ukrainian Airspace, it is highly contested. In that kind of airspace the A-10 will do no better than the Su-25 Frogfoot. It will be relegated to throwing unguided rockets in ballistic arcs from well behind the lines because if it tries to fulfil its primary CAS role it will simply be shot down.... Thats why the Ukrainians do not WANT the damned thing.
I read somewhere that in a hot war vs the Soviets, the US expected A-10 casualties to be high but acceptable due to the fact the US had a numerous supply of both airframes and pilots to absorb these losses somewhat. Ukraine simply wouldn't have that luxury as training would be long and limited to a handful of pilots and I would expect the number of airframes given to be quite low. Any A-10's wouldn't be used to their full effectiveness and would find themselves relegated to lobbing bombs/rockets much like the SU-25 is at which point you might as well purely use the SU-25 to simplify maintenance as supporting the A-10 would become a drain on resources for little benefit.
The A-10 should not be given or sold to anyone. We aren't teenagers giving our old hand me downs to the cousins and siblings. Its by far one of the best staples of american history. Why are we giving away weapons to countries who've done nothing for us? If anything we should just retrofit them instead of building new-more expensive planes.
First of all, Ukraine is fighting mostly trench warfare, where both sides have plenty of anti air systems close by. Secondly setting a logistics for spare parts, service and training would be very complicated and expensive as this plane is not as spread across the world as F-16. So the cost to benefit would be absolutely terrible, as these planes would get blown out of the sky in large numbers very fast.
It was designed to engage Russian armour at short notice but with predicted extremely high atriton rates so not suited for a long fight in contested air space.
The A10 is more a symbol of air power, not really something effective. Even in Desert storm; the majority of tank or other ground kills were not from A10's, but F111's with maverick missiles. In fact, a britisch SAS unit in it's tank was misstakely identified as a disguised enemy tank, and the A10 took 2 runs with it's cannon at it. Everybody was fine, and the tank drove on home.
Yes, there seems to be a general consensus here that A10's wouldn't survive in Ukraine but very little real examination of what they would actually face there compared with what every other arm faces on a daily basis. For a start infantry regularly face prolonged artillery bombardments.
We can find out under actual real conditions to know for sure. The warthog is known to have better survivability for returning the pilot home after damage.
@@Philip-hv2kc I am sure the poor bastards who have to fly them will love your cavalier attitude to their lives. People need to get it through their heads that the Ukrainians DO. NOT. WANT. THE. A-10. They have stated that in the past when asked. The reasons are simple. Low combat survivability in the actual air war in place in Ukraine, and the extremely high maintenance and operational costs of what is an ancient airframe.
@@Philip-hv2kcyeah, let’s waste years of man hours training and equipping so maybe we can see how many actually make it home to be scrapped. You should call the pentagon and demand a meeting.
Technology has moved forward to the point where manned aircraft in the role of CAS are redundant. Even if they gain air superiority, I do not expect Ukraine to use any manned aircraft of any type in this role. Irrespective of the cost of the platforms themselves, the cost in terms of crews would be prohibitive. But apart from that, they don't need to. They have a huge variety of options for killing armour including FPV drones that are cheap and easy to use. Drones have other advantages in rapid innovation and development cycles to stay ahead of the enemy's own tech.
The A-10 would not survive in the skies over Ukraine. It can only operate in a permissive environment, like no enemy Ground to air missiles and fighter opposition.
One of those flew over my house in Baltimore County, Maryland 2 or 3 months ago. It was supid loud for a residential area and everyone came outside to see what the noise was.
Get educated about the F-35! It is a fantastic piece of kit, and to be honest, Close Air Support is changing, and the F-35 is shaping it with improved SA and other force multipliers like smarter munitions than the A-10 can use.
The concept started in the late 60s but test trials started mid to late 70s , I first seen it in a California desert in 79 operation tazval, I was in an ADA company, one A10 actually crashed during training.
There is another thing to consider. The age of the airframes and the fact they are out of production does not just mean its more difficult to get parts, but parts are going to break more often. The A-10's left are old, really old, and that means the cost to keep them maintained, even if parts were in ready supply, is also going to be very high. And its not just monetary costs I am talking about, its time costs. Just how many man hours are going to be required to keep those old birds flying? Sharply increasing maintenance costs is one of the reasons the USAAF wants to retire them! Lastly the war in Ukraine is NOT the one the A-10 was designed for. It LOOKS like the one it was designed for but its most certainly not. Why? Well most of the modern missile systems used by the Russians and Ukrainians simply did not exist when the aircraft was designed. The A-10 was designed for a completely different threat environment to the one faced by modern CAS aircraft in a peer on peer war. Its WHY the USAAF wants to shift to the F-35 in that role, because its low radar visibility means it can at least survive in a CAS environment on a modern battlefield without first requiring Air Supremacy! You may have doubts about whether the F-35 can fulfil a CAS role, and maybe they are justified to some extent, but the fact remains the F-35 is the best current option until a new dedicated CAS aircraft can be designed and brought into service, one designed to deal with modern or near future threat environments.
The SU-25's max speed is 950 km/h (590 mph), but cruises at 750km/h. The A-10's max speed is 706 km/h (439 mph), which is 34% less power than the SU-25. Yes the A-10 is an absolute unit for CAS in combined aerial forces ops, but that requires air-dominance fighters loitering above the A-10s for their security. Also the massive prevalence of modern MANDPADS is a massive danger for the A-10, as SU-25s have struggled to survive them in Ukraine on either side of the aerial conflict. It's not the right tool for the job unless NATO creates a No-Fly Zone in Ukraine, which means a full introduction of NATO air-dominance fighters fighting to clear the zone in Ukrainian skies.
Can you show us a photo of an A-10 that had half its wing shot off? They’ve been around for 52 years, and during that entire time everyone says it, but no one ever shows it. I’ve seen the photos of an F-15 that lost and entire wing and landed, an F-16 that lost half a wing and flew 100 miles back home, a B-52 that lost its vertical stab, an A-10 that got an engine shot up, an F/A-18 that got both engines hit by an IR SAM and made it home, but in 52 years I’ve never seen this A-10 missing half its wing. #CircularReporting
They don't want it. It was offered to Ukraine last year by the US. They declined the offer. CAS dedicated aircraft has proven a flying coffin in near peer combat. Ukraine has fewer pilots than aircraft and it can't afford to have them killed in A-10s. The SU-25 (russian A-10 equivalent) has the highest casualty rate of any aircraft for both sides. Ukraine mostly stopped using theirs as the casualty rate was too high compared to their MIGs. They simply cannot operate in a theater where air superiority hasn't been achieved, not without massive casualties (which is exactly what happened to both Russian and UA su-25s). The A-10 is fine when you're fighting terrorists with extremely poor equipment, but suicidal vs a well armed enemy with modern AA / SAM and ESPECIALLY modern Manpads.
The A10 was pulled from gunruns even during the Gulf War. If the A10 was in danger over Iraq, why would it be safer in Ukraine? After it was pulled from gunruns it started getting kills with missiles. Do you really need a big gun with wings to launch missiles if you have other planes?
They no longer use the depleted uranium. They went to tungsten because the uranium powder that shed off the bullet caused contamination to the environment
What are you talking about, they are still loading them with depleted uranium. Especially if we gave them to Ukraine. Tungsten is 15x more expensive and they take longer to make and they are limited in stock. We have enormous bunkers full of uranium rounds, and warehouses full of depleted uranium that we love dropping on other countries. Don't talk out your ass.
First, therefore shouldn’t have close support as it rolled in the first place. That came about through in service rivalry and a document called the Key West agreement. Second, there is no bitter ground attack close support platform in the A-10. None has been built yet. Third, dig deeper on the SU 25. It’s nowhere in the tens league as far as armor and payload capability. It’s not even close. The SU 25 also has to operate then in a non-permissive environment. However, even Justin Bronk from Rusi will contend that the A-10 has a higher rate of pilot return than the SU 25. Currently in Ukraine, due to the lack of pilots pilots are worth more than the airplane. The 1Hunnid will drop the GBU 39 small diameter bomb just as well as an F-16. It will drop it a lot more accurately than an SU 25. Oh, by the way, they recently put aim nines on the A-10 and guess who wins that turning fight? So Eric, Prince of Blackwater fame, prior to the start of the war offered to take F-16’s F 18s and A-10s to Ukraine prior to hostilities. That idea was shot down by the state department sense Russia has now brought in North Korea drones from Iran etc. we could now rear Blackwater and sand our own private military corporation to operate as a supplement to the Ukrainian Air Force. At the end of hostilities we simply turn those airplanes over. Damn shame we didn’t keep two squadrons of F-111s in ready condition or else we could give those to the Ukrainians as well. Oh, I forgot, the A-10 can also drop the CBU- 97 and CBU - 105 Stick to what you know, kid
The new wings are licenced to 2040 and the internal maintenance routine has been halved so they'll stay for a while in some capacity. I'm fairly sure the USA can turn any army into an insurgency if they want to where the A-10 would clean up for cheaper than Strike Eagles, F22's and F35's.
Before watching or reading comments, I'm going to go with: 1) It's simply not survivable without the destruction of the Russian AF and many, many SEAD missions 2) That capability can be done with cheaper and simpler systems 3) That's another long, expensive logistics tail. How am I doing?
In the real world the A-10 was not meant to survive the inter-German border combat zone of WWIII. It was meant to do a maximum of damage before being shot down or destroyed on the apron. Pilots of the time would invoke the excellent nature of the ejection seat. Transferring them to Ukraine would put them into the combat environment they were designed for. If the A-10's ended their life operating deep in the former Soviet Union in the fight to prevent the reformation of the USSR the designers would rest well in their graves.
Ukraine has very destructive drones with machine guns and explosives on them. They cost about $1k and they are getting 100000 of them, a much better idea with no loss of personell
I would think that having a reliable Ally, such as the US is now, is going to become questionable in as little as two months. The people that are going to determine the answers to those type of questions are themselves Highly Questionable.
@@FairladyS130 ain't nobody using any kind of nuclear weapons Your whole point is moot. It's a pretty smart deal to trade weapons you can use for those that you can't Duh
Surely the lesson of how long it takes to transfer an aircraft to Ukraine taught to us by the F16 shows that it makes no sense to spend the time, effort, manpower and money to send an outdated, ill suited, and out of production aircraft. The F16 makes sense because updated versions are still being built, thousands are in service, and it has a broad set of mission capabilities. The A10… not so much.
The printer is always cheaper than the ink. It can’t be sustained unless you have the ammo to shoot in mass quantities of 4,200 rounds per minute. Who’s supplying this?
A yeah, they could lose a record number of pilots in record time. Of course we would have to find a way to force them to take them and use them since they have already said no.
With the advancement and availability of shoulder launced anti-aircraft missles the A-10 is a flying duck, and likely to be shot down almost immediately - even before completing its mission. I believe that I read after the start of the Ukraining invasion in 2022 that the US estimated that if they sent A10's that they would all be shot down by day 3 or 4 of operations. Likely at least half the pilots would be captured or dead. That A-10 was a grand ground support aircraft for about 4 decades.... then technology has limited their usefullness, and now they likely cannot survive in the job they were designed to do as technology has changed. That is common for many weapon systems. We don't use or build battleships anymore either; and many other weapons have seen similar retirements. Honor the A-10 for how good it was until technology made them obsolete. But, recognize that they are obsolete and have very limited usefulness in a modern battle.
The A10 can be used as a wespons delivery truck from the rear with its significant payload. Perfect for Ukraine if the US was trust worthy enough to rely on. Something its allies are now seriously wondering.
The reason it would not be a good idea is because the A-10 is best when Air superiority is on its side. If the Ukrainian forces got air superiority it could rain havoc on the ruzzians.
Used Super Takano maybe. Great to give it full field real time telemetry. Low and nimble is its forte, turn on a dime with out a heat seeking jet engine.
Because they're old, the Ukrainians would need to be trained to maintain and fly them and there susceptible to modern MANPADS? The dollar equivalent in FPV loitering munitions/drones would be much better.
It sounds to me like there is already a boneyard full of spare parts for any A-10s that would be given to Ukraine. I have heard that at least some Embraer Super Tucanos are being used by Ukraine to shoot down the Iranian made drones. If they can survive in Ukraine's airspace then I'm not sure why an A-10 could not do at least as well.
I don't know if you actually read the comment section, but here goes. I was in the US Army from 1977 to 1988 initially in the 1/75th Rgr Bn and then various airborne units. I finished out in the Rgr Dept as a RI. An injury took me out of the fight and the service. This little bio was to let you know that my entire time in was dedicated to fight against the Soviet threat, mainly the one anticipated in Europe and the horde flowing thru The Fulda Gap. The idea that A-10's could not operate in a non-permissive arena is a little skewed. At the point where T-62's, BMP's and other armored vehicles were pouring into Poland, the A-10 would have been deployed to counter the threat as they were designed to do. This would have been done without US air superiority. They would have taken losses, but they would have done their initial counter strikes and slowed the break thru.
They were expecting considerable losses of A-10s even then. Remember we were concerned that an overwhelming Soviet attack could result in us going nuclear, so throwing everything at them "hell for leather" to hopefully avoid the need to escalate to Pershing TBMs on Polish and CZ soil made perfect sense. That was why the system was designed as it was, with manual trim tabs on the ailerons (you can't manually operate the full size flaps) to help it limp back to friendly lines so at least the pilot could eject over friendly territory, hopefully.
Hardly the mission it would be doing in Ukraine today. The front is static and man pads are everywhere.
Please stop sending every defense capability we have to Ukraine, This is stupid. Captured US weapons are on display in Red Square. Design details are being determined now and shared with everyone who hates us. Stop already, Americans have spent decades developing this equipment, it was a lot of hard work and even though some of this stuff is old, they are still the best. Every time we just give this stuff away we do damage to ourselves
Thank you for the freedom that I enjoy and that your service provided.
They took losses in Iraq. Russia is tougher
I wondered when the war started and all those Russian tanks were all in convoy why Ukraine didn't ask for the A10, of course I didn't think about pilots not being able to fly them straight away, well explained as usual Wes. Slava Ukraini. 💙💛
Giving OLD, already purchased, technologies doesn’t funnel $ back to companies that sell NEW weapons.
I'd amend that to 'OLD, already purchased, dead-end programmes'.
If there was a proper 1:1 replacement for the A-10 even in the conceptual stages, I'd bet they'd be dumping Warthogs onto Ozerne AB
just to lubricate budget line-item approval for said 1:1 replacement. As it is, it seems like closest-analogue Eagle EX is already assured of orders anyway.
I'd argue that helping Ukraine achieve victory by donating them old equipment is a sure fire way of creating a potent customer for new western military technology in the very near future.
SLAVA UKRAINE As a 20 year retired Aircraft Armament Systems Specialist who was in the A-10 Guard Unit at Barksdale AFB I can tell you the A-10 was moth balled because it was TOO EFFECTIVE and the first female A-10 pilot who has also retired because the A-10 got HER home safe to her family and her unit the A-10 could do much more against tanks and artillery than they ever dreamed. The A-10 can turn around 180 degrees in a large enough hangar. I can promise from 20 years loading the A-10, F-16, F-4, and the BUFF with ALCM pylons, if the man pads got a direct hit on an A-10 it would still get home. Also you talk about parts, and you think the bone yard full of dust collecting A-10's can not supply enough parts in a war? I can assure you as a guy who made Air Force aircraft the weapons they are the f-16 is a g-force pilot killer and the A-10 is as simple to learn to fly as a Cessna per the pilots who learned to fly them. You did a whole nice little term paper on this and you didn't ask ANY A-10 pilots about their debriefs before and after flight? What Army and Air Force were you in? Go back to your community college and write a term paper on baby diapers. Sorry that's right you write media articles for RT don't you? What does RT stand for. Write your own Russian orc joke. I am just ashamed I am not in Ukraine using my Mechanical Engineering degree to build the Blue and Yellow version of the A-10 if we don't get any from this chicken $hit democracy.
The whole reason NATO countries are selling their f-16's to Ukraine is to get more U.S.tear money for their new incoming F-35's. What is the f-16 called?, the lawn dart, the multi-million dollar Kirby vacuum? A-10 nick name? The TANK KILLER. You did not mention much about it is used right now against HAMAS and in Yemen against the container ship terrorists.
The A-10 does not NEED AIR SUPERIORITY. IT IS AIR SUPERIORITY! SLAVA HEROYI
Not really.
Good subject. The cost of each of those DU rounds, in terms of maintenance, fuel, training and ammo would be a helluva lot more than a drone with a mortar round strapped to it. . Modern war
"The A-10 does not NEED AIR SUPERIORITY. IT IS AIR SUPERIORITY!" You should have written that nonsense way earlier. By the way, comparing the Ukraine theatre with anti-terrorist operations is a big L.
@@toby9999 Why?
JUST DAMNED IDIOT POLITIEK...!
Honestly, the US has hundreds of recently decommissioned Huey Super Cobras just sitting in the desert. They would probably be much more effective and faster training new chopper pilots than the more expensive program of maintaining a fleet of A-10's. Add to the fact that Ukraine is a high aerial threat environment. The Huey's can at least fly very low and slow when needed to avoid getting shot down.
ukraine needs Harrier Jets rather than a10
harrier can be positioned near the frontline and can sprung up into action quickly
Until AI srarted flying
@@Condor1970
In that combat environment they would be more vulnerable than the A-10. The Ukrainians are doing great with their drones and anti armor weapons.
Training helicopter pilots, for a warzone no less, takes less training than A-10 pilots?
@@tobiasrietveld3819 Well, I'm not going to say whether it's faster or not. I do know that Army helicopter school is total about 18 months from trainee to a pilot. A-10 school is previously qualified pilots then take additional 6 months or so to train on just the A-10. So, how long to become a pilot in the first place, I don't know. Also, helicopter pilots are often warrant officers as well, requiring less prior collegiate education. My only real point was that maintaining a fleet of Cobras is undoubtedly cheaper than the A-10's. Also, helicopters are something Ukraine probably would need and be able to use more effectively in larger numbers than a dozen or so A-10's. Ukraine does have a number of older Hind helicopters, but I would be pretty confident in saying Super Cobras would be a notable step up.
Why not? Manpads and similar anti-aircraft missiles? Training? Maintenance?
Because Ukraine does not want the A-10. How many times do they have to tell us?
The A10 is the most beautiful aircraft ever made.
Not sure I’d describe it as beautiful (unless I’m in the military and need air support) but I would call it awesome and wish we in uk had asked for them
Also one of the most overrated aircraft. No aircraft in modern history (after WWII) has caused more friendly fire casualties for both the US and UK. But nobody likes to talk about it (except the British).
Great video, and I know this is a pretty beaten hop if by now, but…
I (a former A-10 squadron member) think real opportunities are being missed in online discussions and by the military regarding The A-10, particularly in Ukraine but elsewhere as well. Whether or not future aircraft might provide better options, right now, the A-10 has some potentially untapped uses-no gun, SDB’s or maverick’s required.
The four inboard pylons of the A-10 can currently carry sixteen SDB’s. These could be swapped with switchblade 300’s or 600’s, with minimal effort. Due to the light weight of these weapons, all ten pylons (not counting the central 600 gallon drop tank mount or the wingtip AIM ones) could swapped out with up to forty switchblade 600’s (four per pylon) or (if the mounts were designed), one-hundred and sixty switchblade 300’s (sixteen per pylon).
Removal of the GaU-8 could allow for an internal fuel store, drone control suite, EW/ECM or any other useful systems. Placing ARM missiles on two of the pylons could also counter/deter any vehicle mounted, radar SA systems and if the central pylon were modified could add a third ARM missile, electronic, com, camera, package, etc.
SBD’s could also be included in this mix. Essentially, variable loading options per wing pylon could be: 16x300, 4x600, 4xSDB Mounting Starlink transmitters onboard the A-10 could allow each of these to be launched and directed by ground operators, freeing the pilot to fly.
The up to forty minute loiter (slightly more perhaps if air launched) of the 600’s, alleviates the need for the A-10 to loiter near the frontline. If the SDB’s (GBU-39’s) could interchanged with the variants (current and future) of the British SPEAR munition-a size equivalent of the GBU-39, with multi sensor guidance, rocket boosted range and speed and variable payloads including EW and ARM-then the capabilities soar.
Ukraine would have to make these adaptations happen but it would not require airframe redesigns (excepting, perhaps, messing with the GaU-8. The U.S. would need the typical planning committee and development stretches pushing it into the future, but Ukraine could push it.
For a nation mounting frontline, unguided rocket attacks with Mil-8’s, this would be a far better choice. If adapted with the offensive changes I have suggested, a low altitude dash-in/loiter-out drone swarm launcher that can land a few miles away on a dirt field might be a real plus.
I know it isn’t going to happen, but it sure could.
Some interesting thoughts… but I thought the SDB guidance package was too easy to spoof?
Sorry, but no US pilot has ever flown an A-10 in contested airspace but only in airspace where the ground based anti air has been thoroughly suppressed, and hostile air assets are essentially non existent.
A-10's will last about as long in Ukraine as the Su-25's did. Which is to say, not very. Which is why Ukraine has specifically stated IT DOES NOT WANT A-10's. It stated that years ago. They DO NOT WANT THEM......
What about that statement can people not get through their heads? The Ukrainians do not want the A-10 for multiple reasons, and their low survivability in contested airspace is only one of those reasons.
For example, has the high maintenance cost of those old airframes (all of them are over 25 years old now) escaped you? The LAST thing the Ukrainians need is a probably niche at best combat platform that costs an arm and a leg to keep flying for very little actual result.
The only reason the A-10 has been able to operate as long as it has is because 1) the USAAF has always been able to gain and maintain at minimum the air superiority required for the A-10 to operate effectively. And 2) the US is one of the few places in the world that could afford to keep an ancient, expensive to maintain niche use aircraft in service.
Ukraine can do NEITHER of those things. Which is why they do not want the A-10.
The A10 can only survived in an environment with complete air superiority.
Yes, and complete air superiority also means the other guys don't have shoulder launched AA missile systems. But these days, everyone has these in abundance making close air support a suicide mission.
In the real world the A-10 was not meant to survive the inter-German border combat zone of WWIII. It was meant to do a maximum of damage before being shot down or destroyed on the apron. Pilots of the time would invoke the excellent nature of the ejection seat. Transferring them Ukraine would put them into the action environment they were designed for. If the A-10's ended their life operating deep in the former Soviet Union in the fight to prevent the reformation of the USSR the designers would rest well in their graves.
talking from your bed
The Russians operate the equivalent of the A10 - the SU25 "Frogfoot" - in their "SMO", as do the Ukraines I believe. Sure, they're taking losses from manpads, but, evidently the combatants consider the SU25 has a role to play in this conflict and thus, must consider the current rate of losses - in aircraft and pilots - as acceptable for the time being. The US could give the Ukrainians the A10, to make up the loss of SU25s, but would Ukraine have sufficient pilots to fly them and could they spare them from frontline operations whilst they were trained to operate the A10?
Not totally true man…not true at all actually.
I've been advocating this, and waiting on this, for over a year now.... WE NEED TO DO THIS!
Oh/ Have you not considered the little, tiny, teeny fact that the Ukrainians have said no thanks? They dont want the A-10. Period.
Why?
1) The airframes are all ancient, which means the maintenance costs on those airframes is through the roof.
2) A similar aircraft with a similar role already exists in the Ukrainian and Russian inventory, the Su-25 Frogfoot. Have you LOOKED at the loss rates of Su-25's in Ukraine? They are through the damned roof.
Fact is the A-10 is a legacy aircraft that flew as long as it has ONLY because the USAAF has been able to maintain Air Superiority wherever the A-10 was deployed. In anything other than a regime of air superiority, and preferably air supremacy, the A-10 is so much target practice. Its simply a good way to get pilots killed.
And thats the reality of Ukrainian Airspace, it is highly contested. In that kind of airspace the A-10 will do no better than the Su-25 Frogfoot. It will be relegated to throwing unguided rockets in ballistic arcs from well behind the lines because if it tries to fulfil its primary CAS role it will simply be shot down....
Thats why the Ukrainians do not WANT the damned thing.
Advocating lol. Who is hanging on your opinion exactly? Ukraine doesn’t want them, they are useless.
🇺🇦🤝🇩🇪🤝🇮🇱🤝🇺🇸 Greetings from Germany!
Drauf geschissen.
I read somewhere that in a hot war vs the Soviets, the US expected A-10 casualties to be high but acceptable due to the fact the US had a numerous supply of both airframes and pilots to absorb these losses somewhat. Ukraine simply wouldn't have that luxury as training would be long and limited to a handful of pilots and I would expect the number of airframes given to be quite low. Any A-10's wouldn't be used to their full effectiveness and would find themselves relegated to lobbing bombs/rockets much like the SU-25 is at which point you might as well purely use the SU-25 to simplify maintenance as supporting the A-10 would become a drain on resources for little benefit.
The Ucranians would probably transform them in remote drones with only 1 pilot flying a squadron
The A-10 should not be given or sold to anyone. We aren't teenagers giving our old hand me downs to the cousins and siblings. Its by far one of the best staples of american history.
Why are we giving away weapons to countries who've done nothing for us? If anything we should just retrofit them instead of building new-more expensive planes.
the only reason you're free to say that is because america's first line of defense is another country's war.........
First of all, Ukraine is fighting mostly trench warfare, where both sides have plenty of anti air systems close by. Secondly setting a logistics for spare parts, service and training would be very complicated and expensive as this plane is not as spread across the world as F-16. So the cost to benefit would be absolutely terrible, as these planes would get blown out of the sky in large numbers very fast.
Sad but to true. I agree Happy ThanksGiving
It was designed to engage Russian armour
at short notice but with predicted extremely high
atriton rates so not suited for a long fight in
contested air space.
The US doesnt even give them F-16s why would they do any other aircraft?
Especially ones they specifically said they don’t want.
The A10 is more a symbol of air power, not really something effective. Even in Desert storm; the majority of tank or other ground kills were not from A10's, but F111's with maverick missiles.
In fact, a britisch SAS unit in it's tank was misstakely identified as a disguised enemy tank, and the A10 took 2 runs with it's cannon at it. Everybody was fine, and the tank drove on home.
We see TONS of videos of Ukrainian helicopters lobbing rockets. Couldn’t an A10 be used the same way? Are they more susceptible to AA than a Hind?
Yes, there seems to be a general consensus here that A10's wouldn't survive in Ukraine but very little real examination of what they would actually face there compared with what every other arm faces on a daily basis. For a start infantry regularly face prolonged artillery bombardments.
you could use a cropduster if you're just lobbng rockets.
oh look...the OA-1K sky warden is still in production..
I came to say..... F**k No!
Absolutely No. Bad idea.
Thanx Wes. The A10 is so bad-ass! “Warm Kerry Gold butter.”
The warthogs would fall out of the sky at all most the same rate as the su25.. Times has changed
Drones baby!!!
We can find out under actual real conditions to know for sure. The warthog is known to have better survivability for returning the pilot home after damage.
@@Philip-hv2kcSo? It won’t fly again after that. The exact same problem with the 60 Frogfoots lost over the last three years.😊
@@Philip-hv2kc I am sure the poor bastards who have to fly them will love your cavalier attitude to their lives.
People need to get it through their heads that the Ukrainians DO. NOT. WANT. THE. A-10. They have stated that in the past when asked.
The reasons are simple. Low combat survivability in the actual air war in place in Ukraine, and the extremely high maintenance and operational costs of what is an ancient airframe.
@@Philip-hv2kcyeah, let’s waste years of man hours training and equipping so maybe we can see how many actually make it home to be scrapped. You should call the pentagon and demand a meeting.
Technology has moved forward to the point where manned aircraft in the role of CAS are redundant.
Even if they gain air superiority, I do not expect Ukraine to use any manned aircraft of any type in this role. Irrespective of the cost of the platforms themselves, the cost in terms of crews would be prohibitive. But apart from that, they don't need to. They have a huge variety of options for killing armour including FPV drones that are cheap and easy to use. Drones have other advantages in rapid innovation and development cycles to stay ahead of the enemy's own tech.
Because they will drop like flies
A10 training takes time as well, but i agree with the video
I think the "Have" would work out pretty well!
because Ukraine does not have air superiority. Both sides do not do close air support of ground assets due to air defense.
The A-10 would not survive in the skies over Ukraine. It can only operate in a permissive environment, like no enemy Ground to air missiles and fighter opposition.
Bullies only understand strength. 👊🏼
UA Heroes! They are expensive to operate!
They said the same about the F-16 x Ukraine,and now Ukraine is flying them.I think it can be very useful x Ukraine.
Have you seen Lazerpig on the A10. It’s not so good.😂
Great presentation, you made a subscriber outta me!
One of those flew over my house in Baltimore County, Maryland 2 or 3 months ago. It was supid loud for a residential area and everyone came outside to see what the noise was.
Good stuff, thanks.
The A10 has a very expensive operation cost. The 30 MM cannon is very complicated and needs near constant maintenance.
Get educated about the F-35! It is a fantastic piece of kit, and to be honest, Close Air Support is changing, and the F-35 is shaping it with improved SA and other force multipliers like smarter munitions than the A-10 can use.
The A-10 is a death trap. Antique.
The concept started in the late 60s but test trials started mid to late 70s , I first seen it in a California desert in 79 operation tazval, I was in an ADA company, one A10 actually crashed during training.
There is another thing to consider.
The age of the airframes and the fact they are out of production does not just mean its more difficult to get parts, but parts are going to break more often. The A-10's left are old, really old, and that means the cost to keep them maintained, even if parts were in ready supply, is also going to be very high.
And its not just monetary costs I am talking about, its time costs. Just how many man hours are going to be required to keep those old birds flying? Sharply increasing maintenance costs is one of the reasons the USAAF wants to retire them!
Lastly the war in Ukraine is NOT the one the A-10 was designed for. It LOOKS like the one it was designed for but its most certainly not. Why? Well most of the modern missile systems used by the Russians and Ukrainians simply did not exist when the aircraft was designed. The A-10 was designed for a completely different threat environment to the one faced by modern CAS aircraft in a peer on peer war. Its WHY the USAAF wants to shift to the F-35 in that role, because its low radar visibility means it can at least survive in a CAS environment on a modern battlefield without first requiring Air Supremacy!
You may have doubts about whether the F-35 can fulfil a CAS role, and maybe they are justified to some extent, but the fact remains the F-35 is the best current option until a new dedicated CAS aircraft can be designed and brought into service, one designed to deal with modern or near future threat environments.
The A10 will not be retired...it will be phased out gradually. Too many think too much of it.
The SU-25's max speed is 950 km/h (590 mph), but cruises at 750km/h. The A-10's max speed is 706 km/h (439 mph), which is 34% less power than the SU-25. Yes the A-10 is an absolute unit for CAS in combined aerial forces ops, but that requires air-dominance fighters loitering above the A-10s for their security. Also the massive prevalence of modern MANDPADS is a massive danger for the A-10, as SU-25s have struggled to survive them in Ukraine on either side of the aerial conflict. It's not the right tool for the job unless NATO creates a No-Fly Zone in Ukraine, which means a full introduction of NATO air-dominance fighters fighting to clear the zone in Ukrainian skies.
Can you show us a photo of an A-10 that had half its wing shot off? They’ve been around for 52 years, and during that entire time everyone says it, but no one ever shows it. I’ve seen the photos of an F-15 that lost and entire wing and landed, an F-16 that lost half a wing and flew 100 miles back home, a B-52 that lost its vertical stab, an A-10 that got an engine shot up, an F/A-18 that got both engines hit by an IR SAM and made it home, but in 52 years I’ve never seen this A-10 missing half its wing. #CircularReporting
I wonder if it would make a good remote-controlled drone mother ship.
Once the A-10 is out of the US, there is no system to suppott it. Troops need time to learn how to operate and maintain it,
small cheap drones have replaced a-10´s role as close air support.
They don't want it. It was offered to Ukraine last year by the US. They declined the offer. CAS dedicated aircraft has proven a flying coffin in near peer combat. Ukraine has fewer pilots than aircraft and it can't afford to have them killed in A-10s. The SU-25 (russian A-10 equivalent) has the highest casualty rate of any aircraft for both sides. Ukraine mostly stopped using theirs as the casualty rate was too high compared to their MIGs. They simply cannot operate in a theater where air superiority hasn't been achieved, not without massive casualties (which is exactly what happened to both Russian and UA su-25s). The A-10 is fine when you're fighting terrorists with extremely poor equipment, but suicidal vs a well armed enemy with modern AA / SAM and ESPECIALLY modern Manpads.
The A10 was pulled from gunruns even during the Gulf War. If the A10 was in danger over Iraq, why would it be safer in Ukraine?
After it was pulled from gunruns it started getting kills with missiles. Do you really need a big gun with wings to launch missiles if you have other planes?
Awesome as usual Wes. Sorry can’t help you with the rattler. 🙁All the best to you and family. Take care.😃
They no longer use the depleted uranium. They went to tungsten because the uranium powder that shed off the bullet caused contamination to the environment
I wonder if they have better performance?
@ well the tungsten will not pollute the environment like uranium
They haven't stopped using DU rounds in the A10 yet, but there is talk of it.
What are you talking about, they are still loading them with depleted uranium. Especially if we gave them to Ukraine. Tungsten is 15x more expensive and they take longer to make and they are limited in stock. We have enormous bunkers full of uranium rounds, and warehouses full of depleted uranium that we love dropping on other countries. Don't talk out your ass.
Simple. No air superiority that A-10 needs to be effective.
We need to stop the war not escalate it.
That’s an awesome idea!
Not as simple, it would require the support elements and ground crews
First, therefore shouldn’t have close support as it rolled in the first place. That came about through in service rivalry and a document called the Key West agreement.
Second, there is no bitter ground attack close support platform in the A-10. None has been built yet.
Third, dig deeper on the SU 25. It’s nowhere in the tens league as far as armor and payload capability. It’s not even close. The SU 25 also has to operate then in a non-permissive environment. However, even Justin Bronk from Rusi will contend that the A-10 has a higher rate of pilot return than the SU 25. Currently in Ukraine, due to the lack of pilots pilots are worth more than the airplane.
The 1Hunnid will drop the GBU 39 small diameter bomb just as well as an F-16. It will drop it a lot more accurately than an SU 25. Oh, by the way, they recently put aim nines on the A-10 and guess who wins that turning fight?
So Eric, Prince of Blackwater fame, prior to the start of the war offered to take F-16’s F 18s and A-10s to Ukraine prior to hostilities. That idea was shot down by the state department sense Russia has now brought in North Korea drones from Iran etc. we could now rear Blackwater and sand our own private military corporation to operate as a supplement to the Ukrainian Air Force. At the end of hostilities we simply turn those airplanes over.
Damn shame we didn’t keep two squadrons of F-111s in ready condition or else we could give those to the Ukrainians as well.
Oh, I forgot, the A-10 can also drop the CBU- 97 and CBU - 105
Stick to what you know, kid
The new wings are licenced to 2040 and the internal maintenance routine has been halved so they'll stay for a while in some capacity. I'm fairly sure the USA can turn any army into an insurgency if they want to where the A-10 would clean up for cheaper than Strike Eagles, F22's and F35's.
Thank you for educating this arm-chair General sitting at home eating a slice of pizza.
Why not give it ???!!! An awesome idea !!!
It’s a horrible idea, the Ukrainians thought so when they turned it down.
Can the A-10 out perform the modern drones, without any pilot to worry about. Would be great if they could find a way to get that gun into the game .
That gun is the most useless thing bout it. It can’t kill modern MBT’S and much cheaper systems can deal with every else. Fanboys are sad.
I´m fascinated about A-10 (like Me 262), but I´m not sure it works in modern warfare.
I saw the A10 in action in Iraq and it is awesome but like mentioned before, the A10 was not built to survive in contested airspace
Because we need to give it to the Army.
I'll give you double what Wes offers for the Rattler! oh, and another great video Wes.
Before watching or reading comments, I'm going to go with:
1) It's simply not survivable without the destruction of the Russian AF and many, many SEAD missions
2) That capability can be done with cheaper and simpler systems
3) That's another long, expensive logistics tail.
How am I doing?
In the real world the A-10 was not meant to survive the inter-German border combat zone of WWIII. It was meant to do a maximum of damage before being shot down or destroyed on the apron. Pilots of the time would invoke the excellent nature of the ejection seat. Transferring them to Ukraine would put them into the combat environment they were designed for. If the A-10's ended their life operating deep in the former Soviet Union in the fight to prevent the reformation of the USSR the designers would rest well in their graves.
Except Ukraine isn't interested in wasting the few pilots they have on a system that isn't survivable in this environment.
Ukraine has very destructive drones with machine guns and explosives on them. They cost about $1k and they are getting 100000 of them, a much better idea with no loss of personell
You make some interesting points, have you considered "brrrrrrrrrp"
Agree 100% + Ammo
The skystriker wasn't cool?! Since you kept your toys, you should really show us all of them
We are not retiring them all. We are literally replacing the airframe on over 120+ of them
I would think that having a reliable Ally, such as the US is now, is going to become questionable in as little as two months.
The people that are going to determine the answers to those type of questions are themselves Highly Questionable.
When has the USA ever been a 'reliable' ally? Deadly reliable maybe, you won't survive its 'friendship'.
@breakbollocks9164 well for openers, without a United States of America alliance with Ukraine, Ukraine would now be Russia.
@@reubenj.cogburn8546 That 'alliance' was a condition of Ukraine giving up it's USSR nukes. Look where they are now as a result of that 'alliance'.
@@FairladyS130 ain't nobody using any kind of nuclear weapons
Your whole point is moot.
It's a pretty smart deal to trade weapons you can use for those that you can't
Duh
@@reubenj.cogburn8546 The deterrence factor is not moot, duh.
Nighthawk was *also* modeled after the Firefox. (from the movie of the same name)
:)
F-16s conducting SEAD missions could help establish local air superiority making SU-25s and A-10s combat effective but that's a ways off
SEAD does absolutely nothing to counter MANPADS, that’s the threat to A-10s.
FFWD to 4:45, everything before this has nothing to do with the question asked…
Surely the lesson of how long it takes to transfer an aircraft to Ukraine taught to us by the F16 shows that it makes no sense to spend the time, effort, manpower and money to send an outdated, ill suited, and out of production aircraft. The F16 makes sense because updated versions are still being built, thousands are in service, and it has a broad set of mission capabilities. The A10… not so much.
Good thought
The printer is always cheaper than the ink. It can’t be sustained unless you have the ammo to shoot in mass quantities of 4,200 rounds per minute. Who’s supplying this?
This could be a true gamechanger for Ukraine!!
A yeah, they could lose a record number of pilots in record time. Of course we would have to find a way to force them to take them and use them since they have already said no.
Highly entertaining,and educational. You make learning easy and fun,from a 78 yr. old life long civilian.thanks, Wes!
NO!
It take 1.5 yrs to train up for the A-10
What they wanted and what they needed was long range missiles yet the US wouldn't allow them to be used.
Truly bizarre policy .
With the advancement and availability of shoulder launced anti-aircraft missles the A-10 is a flying duck, and likely to be shot down almost immediately - even before completing its mission. I believe that I read after the start of the Ukraining invasion in 2022 that the US estimated that if they sent A10's that they would all be shot down by day 3 or 4 of operations. Likely at least half the pilots would be captured or dead.
That A-10 was a grand ground support aircraft for about 4 decades.... then technology has limited their usefullness, and now they likely cannot survive in the job they were designed to do as technology has changed.
That is common for many weapon systems. We don't use or build battleships anymore either; and many other weapons have seen similar retirements.
Honor the A-10 for how good it was until technology made them obsolete. But, recognize that they are obsolete and have very limited usefulness in a modern battle.
Yes! Bring back the Fairchild aka Warthog!
Ukraine lacks the concept of combined arms. Some Abrams here, some Leopards there, a few F-16, etc. are not going to cut it on their own.
1:24 - Ummm, nope. That is very much modeled after the 'MiG-31' that Clint Eastwood stole in the movie "Firefox".
The A10 can be used as a wespons delivery truck from the rear with its significant payload.
Perfect for Ukraine if the US was trust worthy enough to rely on.
Something its allies are now seriously wondering.
The reason it would not be a good idea is because the A-10 is best when Air superiority is on its side. If the Ukrainian forces got air superiority it could rain havoc on the ruzzians.
Javeline is much more affordable for anti tank operations.
The A10s will be retrofit with AI pilots, they need to be attritable in contested environments without the danger of losing a pilot
Used Super Takano maybe. Great to give it full field real time telemetry. Low and nimble is its forte, turn on a dime with out a heat seeking jet engine.
Because high maintenance Ukraine called the A-10 a obsolete piece of junk and turned it down in late 2022.
A 3 minute Vedic dragged to a 10,in one
Because they're old, the Ukrainians would need to be trained to maintain and fly them and there susceptible to modern MANPADS? The dollar equivalent in FPV loitering munitions/drones would be much better.
wtf why not just give them everything, let europe give them stuff, they need to step up more. we can not keep this up
It sounds to me like there is already a boneyard full of spare parts for any A-10s that would be given to Ukraine. I have heard that at least some Embraer Super Tucanos are being used by Ukraine to shoot down the Iranian made drones. If they can survive in Ukraine's airspace then I'm not sure why an A-10 could not do at least as well.
Because the A-10 is a sitting duck when facing modern MANPADS. Just an absolute death trap.
Sure, but does RuZZia have them? I mean modern MANPADS?
@@u.s.1974 God, yes sir.
Would guess they don’t have enough manpower too .
costs... who will pay for its sustainment???
Using a10 require absolute air control